6 ms·

For those new to Hegel, The Accessible Hegel by philosopher Michael Allen Fox is a great nutshell introduction book. As a software engineer, I was surprised to

For those new to Hegel, The Accessible Hegel by philosopher Michael Allen Fox is a great nutshell introduction book. As a software engineer, I was surprised to see how some of Hegel's ideas describe dynamics I've observed in my career. His dialectical process resembles how software systems evolve over time, and his "Spirit" reminds me of the ferment of ideas and collaboration on the Internet. The beauty of Hegel's rich texts is that each generation of readers brings him back to life in a new way.

Barrin92 5y ago
Reminds me of the Foucault quote "Truly to escape Hegel involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us" A another engineer / not-trained philosopher I was also surprised how intuitive Hegel's ideas were when I started to read philosophy on my own, having had the idea in my head that he's not understandable at all. (Of course that's not to say he isn't actually difficult at a higher level that probably went over my head)
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  Of all people, I wouldn't quote Foucault to make sense out of anything.
  - steppi 5y ago
    Foucault has acquired a bad reputation in some circles as a nonsense-peddler but in my opinion it's not really deserved. Anyone interested in getting a sense of his thought should check out the transcripts of the lectures he gave at the College De France [1]. You can find a pdf of the anthology "Society Must be Defended" [2] online and this is not a bad place to start. Whether you agree or disagree with the content, you should find the lectures fairly lucid and not expressing the kind of internally inconsistent anti-reality skepticism and relativism you may expect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_lectures_at_the_Coll%C3%A8ge_de_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_lectures_at_the_C... [2] http://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/2288168/a517f6153600c84ff334b416cf460745.pdf?1528579703 http://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/2288168/a517f61536...
  - stewbrew 5y ago
    Why?
    - atoav 5y ago
      Focoult moved into poststructuralism, a school of thought which was sceptical of clear explainations (they had very valid reasons for this in my eyes). This means poststructuralist texts can be extremely hard to read and understand, especially to non-philosophically trained people or those hoping to get a logical theory about the world instead of a multi-facetted view onto some phenomenom within it. That doesn't mean you cannot pull a lot of interesting stuff from those texts, it just means it is very hard and never clearcut. Critics and people who failed to parse such a book dislike poststructuralists for this. Focoult however wasn't a typical poststructuralist anyways and many of his books are very well observed and describe power relationships within society on the base of some other phenomena. As any philosopher with a precise language his books stand and fall with the quality of translation. I liked the German translations better than the English ones, because English as a language doesn't really lend itself to auch thinking..
      - stewbrew 5y ago
        No offence but I was asking the OP. I know Foucault and actually like his writings. His work is highly opinionated and I don't agree with everything but IMHO reading his work is generally worth the time.
      - TeeMassive 5y ago
        Even as a native French speaker who is used to read obtuse political books from French intellectuals of the last century I find him absolutely abhorrent to read. My main complain is that he ascribed to the notion that it is more important to have the "right" political impact than to seek the truth. That and the fact that he was a pedophile, but I digress.

Barrin92 5y ago

Reminds me of the Foucault quote "Truly to escape Hegel involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us" A another engineer / not-trained philosopher I was also surprised how intuitive Hegel's ideas were when I started to read philosophy on my own, having had the idea in my head that he's not understandable at all. (Of course that's not to say he isn't actually difficult at a higher level that probably went over my head)

TeeMassive 5y ago
Of all people, I wouldn't quote Foucault to make sense out of anything.
- steppi 5y ago
  Foucault has acquired a bad reputation in some circles as a nonsense-peddler but in my opinion it's not really deserved. Anyone interested in getting a sense of his thought should check out the transcripts of the lectures he gave at the College De France [1]. You can find a pdf of the anthology "Society Must be Defended" [2] online and this is not a bad place to start. Whether you agree or disagree with the content, you should find the lectures fairly lucid and not expressing the kind of internally inconsistent anti-reality skepticism and relativism you may expect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_lectures_at_the_Coll%C3%A8ge_de_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_lectures_at_the_C... [2] http://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/2288168/a517f6153600c84ff334b416cf460745.pdf?1528579703 http://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/2288168/a517f61536...
- stewbrew 5y ago
  Why?
  - atoav 5y ago
    Focoult moved into poststructuralism, a school of thought which was sceptical of clear explainations (they had very valid reasons for this in my eyes). This means poststructuralist texts can be extremely hard to read and understand, especially to non-philosophically trained people or those hoping to get a logical theory about the world instead of a multi-facetted view onto some phenomenom within it. That doesn't mean you cannot pull a lot of interesting stuff from those texts, it just means it is very hard and never clearcut. Critics and people who failed to parse such a book dislike poststructuralists for this. Focoult however wasn't a typical poststructuralist anyways and many of his books are very well observed and describe power relationships within society on the base of some other phenomena. As any philosopher with a precise language his books stand and fall with the quality of translation. I liked the German translations better than the English ones, because English as a language doesn't really lend itself to auch thinking..
    - stewbrew 5y ago
      No offence but I was asking the OP. I know Foucault and actually like his writings. His work is highly opinionated and I don't agree with everything but IMHO reading his work is generally worth the time.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      Even as a native French speaker who is used to read obtuse political books from French intellectuals of the last century I find him absolutely abhorrent to read. My main complain is that he ascribed to the notion that it is more important to have the "right" political impact than to seek the truth. That and the fact that he was a pedophile, but I digress.